Sunday, September 10, 2006

A Bit of an Over-Reaction?

She basically ignored him for most of the evening, until the point where the guy actually tried to touch her. At which point she shoved him up against a wall, jammed her arm into his throat and said, "I have had enough of you being rude and disrespectful toward women. The next time I see you, you will be polite and show respect." At which point the dude started blubbering all sorts of drunken apologies.

Scalzi shows a picture of Krissy with a baseball bat and a caption reading, "Respect me for me. Or because I will beat the holy crap out of you. Really, it's your choice." How charming. So the implication is that if one is a woman, she can beat the crap out of someone for "disrespecting her?" This regressive behavior is typical of the violent youth I see who have so little impulse control that they beat someone up for "dissing them." I would hope a grown woman of Krissy's obvious intelligence would have more sense than that. But no. She decides that a man in an open public place just trying to touch her warranted shoving him against a wall and putting her hand to his throat.

Most excellent.It reminds me of when my friend Shernita confronted with an aggressive yahoo who referred to her as a [n-word - sorry, can't even type it] in a bar. She asked if that was le mot juste, and on being provided with an affirmative, politely introduced the speaker's face to her knee.

Krissy Rocks! I've always wanted her to guest post...or start her own blog. But now I know that she is too busy doing the essential task of keeping men in their place.

Note to Krissy: I have found the breaking of fingers is also quite effective, as I believe you noted earlier. Were you channeling Jane?

If a man lost his self control and put his hand to a female admirer's throat, think of the repurcussions. He might be arrested for assault or at least thrown out of the bar. Instead, a woman is seen as really cute and a real sexual turn-on as is stated by one of the male commenters to the post, "I think I just got a hard-on..." Talk about sexist--the real sexism here is by male and female commenters who act like a women's act of violence is so ineffectual, it should be labeled as cute and sexy.

Krissy had a number of options before she used violence in this situation, for it is not one of self-defense like someone breaking into your house or holding you up on the street. It is a common annoyance that happens in bars and does not usually warrant a choke-hold as an initial reaction. She ignored the guy initially--great--but that didn't work. The next step might have been to talk firmly to the guy, if that didn't work, some verbal humiliation might be next along with some verbal intimidation. Perhaps she could have gone next to the manager and told him or her that this man was bothering her--they might have put him out. After that, if he physically touched her, a warning that physical consequences would follow might be next and then they should follow.

But to start with violence, to me is an over-reaction, and one that she and her husband, along with their joyous commenters should not be celebrating. It is giving women license to use force when no clear danger is present other than dealing with annoying drunks who find them attractive. Is this annoying?--yes. Upsetting?--yes. But deadly? It sure didn't seem that way from the description.

Fathers teach boys the boundaries of when and how to use violence appropriately--at least they used to. Boys with good role models for fathers teach them how to control their aggressive impulses when necessary as well as when to use them appropriately in the right situation. Perhaps we should be teaching the same concepts to girls and women.

When I write about self-defense, people often accuse me of favoring violence in general. But that's not true. Violence in self-defense is different from violence in response to "disrespect." Part of being responsible is being . . . responsible.

Did she ask him, politely or not, to leave her alone first before actually attacking him?

Why is it that everyone here seems to be turned on by belligerent, butch women?

Do you know any lawyers? Because if she actually hits someone who annoys here with a bat you're going to need one.

Krissy | September 10, 2006 05:28 PM

K -

- Yes, I did ask him several times to leave it alone.

- I may be a bitch woman but I am neither butch nor belligerent.

- I did not actually hurt the little man.

Update II: Why is it that lefty bloggers can never understand the difference between self-defense and a bar room brawl? Could it be that in the former instance, a person is puting into practice their second amendment rights and in the latter one (at least in the above instance) a woman is humilating a man?

Update III: John Scalzi updated his post to say that Krissy was grabbed and not just touched. My post was in response to his original one saying that the man tried to touch her-- if he had originally stated that the man had grabbed her etc., my post would have read differently as that would have been more evidence that the measures she took, were indeed, warranted. However, I am still of the opinion that promoting a picuture with a caption that advocates extreme measures--beating the crap out of others--for disrespect--is not socially useful. "Disrespect" is not generally a concept one can use as a legal defense to warrant using self-defense.

Dr. Helen I do agree with you that there is an obvious double standard going on here, but might I suggest that the correction of that double standard would be to loosen the legal ramifications for men, not tighten them for women? Glenn once commented to that affect when describing war protesters at military funerals that (paraphrase)"in the old day's they'd just punch 'em in the nose."

While I am not at all advocating violence against either sex, have we demonized otherwise typical human behavior with the code words victimhood? The law does recongize "fighting words" as not protected speech. And I expect that in either case, the guy touching the girl or a war protester being attacked by a funeral attendee, no court of their peers would ever find them guilty. I believe our laws have bypassed reality of the human condition, as much as I don't apprecaite this part of our genetic make-up.

I've always said, resorting to violence when no danger is imminent is a sign of immaturity. If she felt the need to dress this guy down, she could have turned and very loudly told him off. Of course, a more civilized approach would have been to firmly tell him to get lost.

Of course, we have attitudes that embrace this but these same women lament the unintended consequences. Those being that men start not hitting on women to the women's great distress. I believe it goes something like this: I want to be the center of attention, unless I don't. I decide who gets to look at me and I can change my mind whenever I choose. All reasonable on the face of it as empowered women but forgetting that increasing the uncertainty reduces those willing to incur the risks.

You sit at a bar, where people pick up people, have a guy try to pick you up, and instead of telling the guy you're not interested (as politely or not politely as you choose), you assault him? Sounds like he should've called the cops.

He didn't because of the shame factor, but that woman should've been locked up.

Whoa, folks....let's dial it down a few notches. According to Scalzi's wife, the guy came onto her multiple times, ramping it up until he touched her.

Notice, if you read the comments, Scalzi's wife actually states that she told him several times to leave her alone.

It isn't like he asked her out and she knocked him cold instead of a response.

Incidentally, not everyone goes to a bar to get picked up. I say that will all respect.

Now, we can agree to disagree on this. Probably the best thing to do is to have complained to the bar, who would get a bouncer to eject the guy. But what if there isn't a bouncer?

What if the guy keeps coming on to her, and finally starts groping her, or following her to her car, etc?

What then?

In a world where many people, in the past, have actively encouraged women to be victims, to not fight back, this might seem positive. Dr. Helen makes the point---and is correct, I think---that proportionality is the issue.

Thus: when a drunk repeatedly comes on to a woman in a bar, when she repeatedly tells him to leave her alone, and when the guy ramps it up until he gropes her...well, what *would* be the correct and proportionate response?

A couple related examples from country music: Miranda Lambert's song Kerosene (or at least the video) has her burning down her boyfriend's house because he cheated on her. Cary Underwood has a song out now where she trashes her boyfriend's truck for the same reason. And these are supposed to be considered "edgy" - there's never any indication that society does or should disapprove of her actions. Do you suppose that if a man did a song like that, it would be condemned as "violence against women"?

What a total jerk this Krissy is. She's like a stereotypical drunk guy in a movie who gets decides to beat up someone who bumped into him. I'd like to see try this again on someone well trained in karate whose instictive reaction to having their throat struck is to slam their assailant on the floor.

Belligerent women are just like belligerent men: 99% egotistical jackasses.

fwiw, Sean Hannity's radio theme song is an excerpt from 'Independence Day' a song about a woman who intentionally fire to her house, killing her abusive spouse, as told from the viewpoint of the - for all practical purposes - orphaned daughter, who approves of her mother's action ... through song.

Five bucks says Hannity's never bothered to listen to the words of the entire song he uses every broadcast day.

Well, SOMEbody's husband has been a long-time promoter of Krissy's husband's first novel, which includes a scene where the main character's transformed, muscular, post- and super-human wife tosses him around a cafeteria like a ragdoll. Scalzi's kinked that way - he digs the rough chicks. Give him a break and don't read too many social implications into it.

I taught women self-defense for many years and what this particular woman did should not be approved or supported because it's a losing formula. The soul of self-defense is avoiding confrontations not fomenting them.

I find the responses of the commentators interesting in that between two men, the action he touched me so I slammed him against the wall would mean I committed assualt. I guess it bothers me because if he groped her, okay but it sounded to me like he patted her arm.

I'm old fashioned. I guess I wonder why her husband by and watched. I wouldn't have.

And as a final comment, it must have been a yuppie bar, because I can think of places where the drunk and his friends would have taught her a hard lesson. (sigh)Would the commentators and the Scalzi's think it was so cool if Krissy was then beaten into a coma because she assaulted someone? If its right for one, then it's right the other way. After all, she battered the drunk...

As I said, it depends on what touched means. I'm going by what is literally said here to the best of my reading and not some form of assault.

It doesn't sound like she crippled or seriously injured the drunk guy; I don't see where she crushed his trachea, or choked him out with an arm-bar... She went up through a gradual escalation of force: ignore, ignore some more, ignore a little more, tell the guy to leave you alone, tell him again... but she drew a very reasonable line at physical contact. Plenty of reasonable people might consider what he did as assault, and we don't know where or how he tried to touch her, for instance.

Also, these situations are NOT equal between men and women, and courts recognize that as well. A women can be excused for using force in situations that would get a man incarcerated, because common sense (and the law) recognize that women are generally smaller, physically weaker, and not socialized the same way as men (sorry, ladies... it's true).

A leering drunk laying his hands on her after multiple warnings? That usually gets a drink thrown in your face at the very least, or a shove/slap.

Drunks are notorious for ignoring warnings... sounds to me like he needed something to get his attention. All college bars have bouncers, but plenty of little neighborhood joints and restaurants/bars don't have a posse of burly guys.

What I won't even attempt to defend is the picture/caption with the baseball bat... that's just foolish. It paints her as a loose cannon and prone to violence. If the drunk guy wanted to press charges on her (his pride would probably prevent him from doing so), his attorney would have a field day with that poster.

Bottom line: this cultural meme where it's cute or sexy for women to get violent needs to stop. It ain't funny anymore. Culturally maybe there was a brief window where it was, when women were being encouraged not to be victims, but it's gotten way out of hand in popular media and general cultural attitudes.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I realy recommend reading Patricia Pearson's When She Was Bad: Violent Women & The Myth of Innocence. It's a real eye-opener. Of course Pearson's been routinely shunned by both the left and the right for exposing this issue since each has their own reasons for not liking what she has to say. Which makes what she has to say even more important.

Oh GEEZ, are we REALLY that upset that a woman stood up for herself and the other jazillion women who get pawed by drunken slobs in a bar? It's clear that WORDS weren't going to get this done.

Let me get this straight Helen - Person X has been provocative with his moves and language to you all night, is clearly out of control, and has ignored yours and others verbal warnings not to continue his actions, and when he moves to actually initiate contact, an aggressive defense is the cause of much handwringing consternation? I mean what's the difference between what she did and US foreign policy (which I happen to support)?

Concentrating on the different social standards for physical contact that exist between men and women is burying the lede on this story BIG time. After all, it is perfectly socially acceptable for a woman when affronted to slap a man across the face. Reverse it, and the cops are involved. And this is as it should be... lets stop tinkering with personal honor to the point that we all have to go on timeout when we defend ourselves...

The blog article clearly said that she evaded him until he put his hands on her. I'd have kicked him in crotch myself at that point, so the guy got off light with a shove and elbow to the neck. Once you've told them that their attentions are not welcome, subsequent touching crosses the line from pestering to assault.

I spent much of my early years of marriage accompanying my husband around to various musical performances around the state. If it was a job where the group had a soundman, I could sit with him. But when my husband was performing with a small ensemble backing up a former Miss Texas at small jazz clubs and hotel lounges, I sat alone at a table during their sets. Some of these drunks are unbelievably dense, and "Get lost" doesn't have meaning to them, particularly if they're showing off for some other drunken neanderthal friends.

Who said she started with violence? In fact she spent most of evening trying to ignore him and he continued escalating his behavior. When she acted, she acted in the manner that she would thought would best defuse that particular situation, and it did.

Krissy is neither stupid nor generally precipitate in her actions, and if she assessed the situation required the response it did, then I suspect that it did. And it had the desired result of getting the guy to understand his attentions were unwanted and unwelcome, in a manner he understood perfectly. In my mind she acted correctly.You're welcome to disagree with that assessment, of course.

Thanks for your comment and clarification. My problem with your post was that it seemed unclear that the drunk had even touched Krissy--you mentioned that he tried. There was no mention of actual touching or intent to harm. Perhaps if you had described his behavior more clearly, I would have understood that some fear of bodily danger was involved which is what one would need to use self-defense in the way that she did. The other problem I have is the way that you portrayed the picture of her and the caption--this implies and states that she harms men if they do not respect her. Respect is not something that one usually uses physical violence to get--I realize that this was tongue and cheek but it advances the idea that it is fine, cute and sexy for women to use violence against men--especially disrespectful ones. I do not agree with that at all--I work with men who have been abused and hurt terribly by women and the world laughs at them and they are helpless to fight back because of cultural stereotyping. Portraying violence against men (breaking fingers, knees to the face, etc. as a good thing the way your commenters (not necessarily you) did is not funny--it is cruel.

I realize your wife is a smart woman, that I was not there and that she may well be within her rights to have done what she did--or maybe not--thanks again for your thoughtful and polite comment.

Years ago I spent a great deal of time in bars, they are great places to have fun but basic etiquette rules sometimes don't apply. Bars have drunks, drunks don't often behave in a polite manner. Helen suggests escalating a bad situation by talking to management. That may not get you the desired result. Some corner bars don't have managers, just the barmaid who is busy serving drinks. Even if they do have managers, the offender might spend thousands of dollars per year in the bar and the "management" might be hesitant to piss the offender off by telling him/her to keep away from someone.

If the police are called due to a barroom dispute, quite often they don't bother figuring out who did what to whom. They see two sets of people that have been drinking and make no assumptions about what is going on regardless of who claims what.

Was Krissy right to do what she did? I don't know. But if you want to stay out of trouble in a bar, don't set foot in one.

Hi Helen, I'm a female cop (a criminal investigator). Maybe women should adopt a use of force continuum, like we have to use in law enforcement. We can't hit someone who "disrespects" us, we must try to calm him down. If a person hits us, we can hit back to subdue him. We can answer the imminent threat of deadly force with deadly force. And so on. Unwanted comeons from a drunk in a bar probably call for moving down a barstool or two or calling the manager.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I buy it that it's "cute" for a woman to toss-around a man that's going a little too far, but not kosher for a man to do the same.

Krissy doesn't sound like the kind of girl that would get weak in the knees at the sight of her boyfriend pinning a guy against a wall for daring to touch her, but I know plenty of women that would. "Chivalry" isn't very PC at the moment (partially for good reasons... guys shouldn't go around roughing up people who look at their girlfriend funny), but that doesn't mean it's entirely lost it's cultural appeal.

The point is made that if a girl were to pester a guy, nobody would accept roughing up the girl, but women ARE physically weaker than men, and I think it's hardwired into our brains to value the safety of women. Biologically, they are assets. Tribes who don't protect their women (respectfully or otherwise) don't have next generations.

We're not really worried about that sort of thing anymore, what with more people than we can shake a stick at and no danger of american extinction anytime soon, but thousands of years of breeding are hard to break in an eyeblink.

It isn't fair that a hulking bully-girl can kick around a runty guy and get away with it, but it's not unexpected.

"My problem with your post was that it seemed unclear that the drunk had even touched Krissy--you mentioned that he tried."

Ah, I can see that. I was indeed unclear (I'll fix that). Suffice to say the fellow did in fact grab Krissy; she was not the first to initiate physical contact and indeed had been trying to avoid the same all evening.

"The other problem I have is the way that you portrayed the picture of her and the caption--this implies and states that she harms men if they do not respect her."

I can see that in the context of the article, although for the record the particular picture was from an earlier posting (http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/004224.html) where the humorous intent is more clear (and the malice more clearly generalized, and not focused at men in particular). In using the picture I expected that most of my readers would remember it from its previous context (i.e., that it wasn't generated specifically for that entry); someone just dropping in clearly doesn't have that context.

A reminder that not everyone knows all the in-jokes.

Also, just to clear up a point in the comments: The commenter who wrote the "I think I just got a hard-on" comment is, in fact, a woman (I know her personally). I don't know what that will mean for your discussion, but I thought I'd note it.

It's me, the female police investigator, again. Yes indeed, in my state the guy would have a year to file assault charges on Krissy. She'd be arrested and taken to jail. I personally suspect alcohol, not feminist outrage, fueled all this.

I've had my ass and tits grabbed and been kissed on the mouth forcibly. There is absolutely no excuse for this behavior. Can we talk about that for a little bit? I mean, what do we as a society need to do about THAT so that in the future your daughter and my daughter can go to a freakin' bar or a concert without being treated like her body is public property?

Choose your friends and acquaintences wisely, especially if you like to go to bars and concerts where alcohol and drugs are likely to be used and where there will be many intoxicated / judgement impaired people around. When things appear to be getting out of control, leave.

Intoxicated inappropriate behaviour is probably just five minutes younger than the invention of alcoholic drink itself - which make both milennia old.

This is not a new situation and the age old, time proven solution still seems to work best: Use your brain.

"Five bucks says Hannity's never bothered to listen to the words of the entire song he uses every broadcast day."

If you're a man or woman of honor, I'll take that bet. And I win. Please donate the five bucks to your nearest homeless shelter or food bank. Mr. Hannity had the singer (I forget who, since I don't know country singers that well) on as a guest star, and discussed exactly this topic: how the song "hook" that he used didn't reflect the actual plot of the song at all, and how the song really was rather graphic and violent.

I, too, wonder why in the initial post it was described as "tried to touch", later changed to "grabbed".

And there's this post prior to this incident, where they discuss breaking a groper's finger. (I guess they're more restrained in real life?) I also note his comment to that post on September 1, where a woman who pinches him gets a pass (from both husband and wife) because she is "cute".

Uh - check your law. The doctrine of self-defense generally requires that one use violence as a last resort. There is often a duty to retreat, notify the authorities if possible, etc.

My guess is that if it happened three times she could have told the bartender and bouncers and got him ejected after the first or second time. I mean it isn't like she tried to tell the authorities and they looked the other way.

So this isn't really self-defense. But feel free to engage in posturing all you want. It's working - I'm quite intimidated.

My, so much sympathy here for the predatory drunken asshole who didn't know when to quit. I guess this does help me understand the Republican/rightwing mindset - ah yes, compassionate conservativism! Now it all makes sense.

Your obviously slanted interpretation of this event (someone who uses necessary force to repel an unwanted physical advance vs. someone going through what you would deem "proper" channels of commodifying violence) is a little repulsive. Your own bias is a bit on display and I would wonder what your opinion on preemptive war is, given your snotty dismissal of the woman in this incident. I suppose you see yourself as above the fray; your tone would suggest as much. No one really is, of course, and your presentation of your thoughts bely as much.

Clearly, there's only one way to settle this: jello wrestling. Instawife vs. Scalzifrau. Three rounds. Get Malkin to do the play-by-play, make it the first Hot Air pay-per-view. Lileks can mix a score from the Star Trek fight theme. It'll be awesome.

Bar room brawl? What the hell are you talking about? One man's unwanted touching of another man's wife is assault and battery, not a brawl. She warned him to stop, he's lucky she didn't inflict permanent damage.

5 years ago I was dancing at a club on Sunset and smiled at a pretty woman. 30 seconds later her girlfriend broke a champaign bottle over my head. No stitches (thick hair) but lots of bleeding.

The cop got my story, and confirmed it with the bartender and another patron. He suggested to me, quietly, that I not give him my real name and not pursue it, because the DA wouldn't press charges against her and she'd get a lawyer and take everything I owned. See, I'm a 6'4 white male, she was a 5'5" hispanic lesbian.

That was the last time I had any sympathy for any woman who says she's abused.

History has shown that women have always been subject to harassment, discrimination, rape and worse. This is not news - everyone knows this. Therefore any woman should have the common sense to realize that if and when she decides to knowingly enter into this situation where its common knowledge that women are viewed as objects, manhandled, victimized, (said situation being "existence as a female") then she is showing a lack of judgement and is responsible for her own fate.

5 years ago I was dancing at a club on Sunset and smiled at a pretty woman. 30 seconds later her girlfriend broke a champaign bottle over my head. No stitches (thick hair) but lots of bleeding.

The cop got my story, and confirmed it with the bartender and another patron. He suggested to me, quietly, that I not give him my real name and not pursue it, because the DA wouldn't press charges against her and she'd get a lawyer and take everything I owned. See, I'm a 6'4 white male, she was a 5'5" hispanic lesbian.

That was the last time I had any sympathy for any woman who says she's abused.

So... if you were robbed, and somehow the cops suggested that the robber could turn the tables and accuse YOU of having robbed HIM, would you then say you would never again have sympathy for people who say they have been robbed?Of course you wouldn't, because that would be stupid...The difference being that despite your being the victim of a robbery, and the victim of someone potentially falsely claiming to be the victim of a robbery, you would not automatically assume everyone who claims to have been robbed is actually a robber. You wouldn't assume that because you don't have a pre-existing prejudice against supposed robbery victims.

But you do have a pre-existing prejudice against women. You are a misogynist.If you weren't, you would see this as an instance of one individual having been victimized by another and not assume everyone else was the same.

Same as if you were victimized by a black man and then decided to dislike all african-americans as a result.

Of course, you argue that the situation was inherently unfair because you're white. This may actually be true - such unfair things do happen. Of course, as we all know, white men have historically had to put up with far more than their fair share of oppression as compared to women or minorities. (yes, I'm rolling my eyes)

I'm ambivilent about the incident. A guy who can't keep hands off get shoved. Big deal. However, had he then broken her nose, we would have been hearing about how terrible he was. Although capable because I taught her, my daughter dends to use eviserating wit. Again though, not concerned about the guy's feelings.

The thing I really want to comment on are the commenters over there. Wowsah. Here, I see discussion, there ad hominum of a fairly perverted sort. Here, an attempt to find out what really happened, there direct statements as to what "neocon" women will and should do -- again fairly vile.

What one does not condone, one tacitly supports. Anyone posting there without condemning the disgusting comments of others is implying a pledge of alligeance. Wierd and sad.

Sorry, no male chauvinism here. The law is the law, I would have said the same thing if the person in question was male. If women are going to use violence they had better learn the law because if they use it illegally they just might pay the price civilly or criminally. (I realize they get a lot of bias, favoritism, corruption, etc. in the courts, but that trend might run out.)

anonymous 11:36pm-

So a male is mentioned and one side of a story is told and already the male is "predatory". I see, all males are guilty, pathological, and predatory until proven innocent. Your bias is showing.

And by the way I'm a libertarian. I consider being called a Republican and "rightwing" laughably inaccurate.

anonymous 11:41pm-

That's the law, male or female: If possible, you're supposed to retreat or call the authorities before you take the law into your own hands and engage in violence gainst another. And it certainly sounds like it was possible in this case. Tell the bartender or bouncer and they throw him out - legal, no civil liability, and less risk to you or your companions. Of course you don't get to blather on about what a tough guy you are on blogs, but being a mature, responsible, law-abiding citizen isn't always glamorous.

"Pre-emptive war" for self-defense is a fairytale constructed by the neocons. It's illegal and a war crime, but then again so is torture. The neocons at PNAC and others came up with a harebrained, ill-thought out scheme on how they were going to "remake" the Middle East by attacking countries and "installing" democracies and "pre-emptive war for self-defense" was the excuse to attack Iraq. And we see how well that works - American soldiers and many others are dying because of some stupid schemes thought up by some Walter Mitty-esque conservative poindexters who saw too many action movies.

anonymous 11:41pm #2-

No double standard, would have said the same thing if the husband did it.

anonymous 12:15am-

Yeah, and she might go to prison if she inflicts permanent damage. And have every single cent taken from her.

anonymous 12:31am-

No, there are laws governing self-defense, whether you are male or female. This could have ended many other ways other than people spouting off about it on their blog. What's wrong with telling the bartender and getting the guy thrown out? He could have been some maniac that knew what he was doing and killed them both.

And again another person with gender issues is turning this into a sexism thing. I would have said the same thing if it was her husband. In case you didn't know, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, its the bouncer's JOB to throw drunks out of bars. And guess what - this is what most self-defense instructors would tell you to do. If you can avoid violence, you avoid it. Life isn't an action movie.

Frankly Krissy is lucky that she didn't end-up in the hospital. Away from the legalities and PC cheerleading, her handling of this situation suggests that she either didn't fully recognize the potential response that she may have provoked, or knew beforehand that the drunk wouldn't respond violently.

I can appreciate that women may wish to retaliate against men who are intimidating or disrespecting them, but the promotion of physical assaults by women is likely to cause more harm to these women then it prevents.

Fights don't end on the first blow, there are no secret kung-fu moves, no one's going to sit still while you break their fingers, and a kick to the crotch is only going to give you enough time to run away.

The commenters who applaud Krissy's behavior need to contemplate what might have happened if the drunk had been a different sort - i.e. the type who would have beaten her senseless.

There was an incident like this when I was in college where a young woman pushed a local 'townie' down the stairs of a bar because she thought he was being too forward. He got up and proceeded to beat her until he crushed her eye socket. Now she's blind in that eye and he went to prison. I doubt that either of them would repeat the incident.

But I must say, I got a real laugh out of the obvious self-hatred of Mrs. Ernest T. Bass. Poor, poor man... all he was trying to do was cop a feel! Given who Mrs. Bass is married to, I can certainly see why she would mistake this for a romantic gesture of the highest order...

I admire Scalzi and his blog, but I have my doubts that Mrs. Scalzi had any actual willingness or ability to back up her threats. I have no knowledge of either person, of course.

If the man was really backing out of a fight he was a sure thing to win, rather than lose, as many commenters assume, I have to wonder whether the arm against the throat was really necessary.

Fathers teach boys the boundaries of when and how to use violence appropriately--at least they used to.

But if a man does this, it's necessarily a violent act. If I myself -- a 6'2", 200 lb man -- did this (I wouldn't), I would certainly expect either to fight as a result or to avoid the fight through sheer physical intimidation.

I think Mrs. Scalzi was really exploiting the taboo against men hitting women, more than actually physically intimidating the man. The man deserves at least partial credit for not taking a swing, even though it sounds like he was being pretty obnoxious for the rest of the night.

If a man repeatedly came on to Glenn Reynolds in a bar, finally escalating to grabbing his ass or crotch, would Glenn be justified in slamming him into the wall after repeated warnings to leave him alone?

If he was trying to get his jollies by copping a feel (touching buttocks, breasts, crotch, or similar erogenous zone), he'd be guilty of Gross Sexual Imposition in some states. In addition to being a sex offense, it's usually a felony, and will get you added you to that state's sex offender registry. That goes for EITHER sex, incidently, so Glenn would certainly be covered (and being a lawyer, he'd also know the legal limits of what he could do in response).

Playing grab-ass in bars can have some serious legal consequences.

This has turned into quite a nasty little thread... my apologies if I contributed in any way to this mess.

The cop got my story, and confirmed it with the bartender and another patron. He suggested to me, quietly, that I not give him my real name and not pursue it, because the DA wouldn't press charges against her and she'd get a lawyer and take everything I owned. See, I'm a 6'4 white male, she was a 5'5" hispanic lesbian.

That was the last time I had any sympathy for any woman who says she's abused.

A) You're a liar. This is a fantasy. Never happened. Cops DO NOT give this kind of advice to bleeding civillians. You could have sued the ass off the LAPD for having an officer suggest this. If you were the only injured party, the issue would have gotten very bad for champagne bottle girl.

B) Most of the rightist scum here will get what they deserve. I can only hope this goes triple for Reynolds and his racist wife. Nice shirts, by the way.

If a man repeatedly came on to Glenn Reynolds in a bar, finally escalating to grabbing his ass or crotch, would Glenn be justified in slamming him into the wall after repeated warnings to leave him alone?

Possibly, but there's a fair chance he'd be charged with assault AND a hate crime. Same advice holds for him - tell a bouncer, who's job it is to throw drunks out. Let the bar owner litigate with the rummies.

Indeed, why didn't she just exercise her God-given second amendment rights and just shoot the guy? I think some people's idea of the Constitution has gone limp...I mean, "flexible, fluid, and protean".

"Where was John Scalzi through all of this, as his wife was being hit on and finally groped?"

I was at home, watching our child, while my wife was out having a well-deserved night out with her friends. She is allowed to do things without me constantly being by my side. She doesn't even need my permission!

You may assume that the drunk in question was asked a number of times to leave Krissy alone (in part through her own testimony, which Dr. Helen has thoughtfully provided in an update), and that others in Krissy's group had also tried to verbally defuse the situation at well.

I do believe my wife is allowed to go out and have a drink with friends in relative peace wherever it is they choose to go, and whether or not I happen to be with her at the time. A husband's presence should not be a necessary requirement for a woman not to be harrassed, nor should a woman have to rely on the actions of her husband to resolve a situation.

On an entirely different subject, I do wish folks wouldn't be making ad hominem attacks on Helen and Glenn. I kind of wish they wouldn't be making ad hominem on my wife, either. I don't mind ad hominem attacks on me, however. Generally, I find them amusing.

It is unfortunate that she had to do what she did do get his attention. However, no man here has a clue what we women put up with when we go out. No clue. When I was younger and went out a lot I kept mace in my purse. On 3 or 4 occasions I used it when my "get the f*** away from me" did not work.Most women to not want to get laid by a drunk stranger when we go out. We just want to have some fun.

That's the law, male or female: If possible, you're supposed to retreat or call the authorities before you take the law into your own hands and engage in violence gainst another.

In those poor, benighted areas where that is the law, then the law in that regard should be universally ignored, as it is not just and does not promote a safe or peaceable society.

Answering an unjustified assault with the violence required to stop it is generally just and was justified in this case.

Words did not work to send this lout somewhere else, in fact they didn't even prevent an escalation of the unwanted advances to point of assault. You do not lay hands on someone who does not want that from you. Period.

Wow, Helen, you're really a doctor? Of what, stupidity? Please. What did Krissy do? She pushed the jerk against the wall and told him to cut it out. I guess you suppose she should have just sat there and absorbed the abuse. I guess that's the more "lady-like" thing to do.

I agree with Zach. Krissy is extremely lucky this drunk didn't decide to go further -- and for all her physical intimidation, she was simply exploiting the taboo against men hitting women.

There's another angle as well. The other men in the bar would never have tolerated the drunk's hitting her back. So she exploited those men, too, who no doubt she would have expected to intervene had the tide of the "fight" turned against her. It was all bluff.

Since the story was changed from "tried to touch" to "grabbed", we don't know what happened...but I'll bet Scalzi and Krissy now have their stories coordinated, in case the guy pursues legal action. Which he should be doing.

Heh heh - oh, yeah, that would be a hoot. Loser McBarfly gets to sit in court and hear everything that led up to his alleged assualt. Maybe they could even bring in some character witnesses who could testify whether he does this kind of thing often.

If he wins what does he get? Nothing other than Krissy gets a slap on the wrist and McBarfly gets some public exposure of his disgusting behaviour.

What were you wishing for? That the threat of legal action would cause women to 'think twice' before defending themselves? Awww, too bad so sad.

This is all complete b.s.-this woman attacked a man who didn't touch her. Why wouldn't she initially have told her husband what actually happened? Why would she downplay it, since she hit the guy? No, the story's been changed, for obvious reasons.

This story has now gotten a lot of publicity, at least on the blogosphere, and they're trying to avoid legal implications. Expect tto see this woman in jail-if not for this assault, for a future one.

Tripp-Who's the loser, tripp? Guys who pick up women in bars-which happens, oh, a billion times a day? Or women who assault men whose advances (non-physical) are greeted with assault? Trust this woman's attacks to escalate, as is typical with violent types.

And if that's what she was doing, she was "exploiting" it to stop unwanted touching. Are you saying there's something wrong with that?

Never start a fight you don't intend to finish.

And you make more suppositions still that she didn't intend to finish it. You don't know that. Try going with what you know.

george wrote:

A real lady would not have been in a bar with drunken men around.

A real lady can go into a bar with friends, have a few drinks, and not be molested,. If you think the frequency with which that doesn't happen puts Mrs. Scalzi in the wrong, you should be driving a car with a bumper-sticker saying, "I'm a misogynist, ask me how."

anonymous of 9:52am wrote:

Since the story was changed from "tried to touch" to "grabbed", we don't know what happened...but I'll bet Scalzi and Krissy now have their stories coordinated, in case the guy pursues legal action. Which he should be doing.

I have no reason to think that is anything but clarification, and neither do you. If you have a driving need to assume conspiracy instead the likely and the uncomplicated--woman goes to bar with friends, and a drunken fool won't take no for an answer until she uses physical force--then I wish you the best in life, while hoping you don't do much damage

In all seriousness, though, I don't suppose I disagree with what she did in this case, however, I can't commend her for it either. I've been to many bars, and put up with some annoying, belligerent drunks, some of whom you know were just looking for a fight, and I managed to refrain. And there's no doubt that if it had been two guys, they would have been kicked out of the bar quickly.

So, overall, I think her actions were understandable, but I'm not sure she handled it the best way possible. But I agree with the anonymous commenter above that stated that she exploited the taboo against men hitting women, which is probably why I don't find it all that commendable that she stood up for herself. She was risking nothing.

Also, I've had, on occasion, my butt grabbed by women at bars or dance clubs and I can't imagine anyone here would defend my right to physically assault the women who perpetuated this most heinous of crimes against my person (Actually, I don't find it to be a big deal, but I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who would think it a much bigger deal if I did the same thing to a woman).

Anon (to my comment about the story being changed): "I have no reason to think that is anything but clarification, and neither do you. If you have a driving need to assume conspiracy instead the likely and the uncomplicated--woman goes to bar with friends, and a drunken fool won't take no for an answer until she uses physical force--then I wish you the best in life, while hoping you don't do much damage."

Bars are typically populated by drunken people. Some of them are sexually aggressive. That's SOP. If Krissy doesn't like that, she should hang out at the library. I notice that you've described the story as originally related, with no phyical contact. There is no justification for her hitting this guy.

There's a world of not-very subtle difference between "tried to touch" and "grabbed". The distinction's big enough that little clarification is needed. I doubt that Scalzi and Krissy would now be lying about this if it wern't for the publicity they have foolishly brought to this case.

I have a better idea, why don't we open bars for cool, intelligent normal people and different bars for everyone else (Dr. Ms. Jump To Conclusions For A Reason To Be Outraged included). That way women like myself can enjoy a drink with my friends without having to smack sense into the self-entitled, disrespectful morons of the world.

I notice that you've described the story as originally related, with no phyical contact.

No, I haven't described it that way. Also, even it was attempted touching instead of touching, there is no legal distinction between the cases except that if he had succeeded in that case it would be assault with battery.

Assault can be repelled with physical force, certainly, also battery.

Bars are typically populated by drunken people. Some of them are sexually aggressive. That's SOP. If Krissy doesn't like that, she should hang out at the library.

No. She gets to go to bars with the expectation she will not be assaulted, and if she is assaulted she can use effective and if need be violent means to end the assault. That's what self defense is.

Come on. Now it's okay to hit people, even if they're merely "disrepectful" (defined however the hitter chooses) or just try to touch somebody? Nect it'll be part of the feminist playbook to taser guys who look at them in ways they don't like. No touching, no commnts, just eyes lingering too long. That's disrespectful, too, isn't it?

BTW, anon, you did describe the story as originbally and likely accurately related...that there was no touching.

Anyway, we can go back and forth on this-I think (as I've said) that the story's been changed for CYA purposes, but certainly if the man had actually, say, touched her ass she was justified in hitting him.

But the comments on the site Dr. Helen linked to are amazing. Lefty idiocy at full throttle.

I thought that was perfectly obvious. The first loser is the guy who won't take no for an answer. The second loser, and in my opinion the bigger loser, is the anonymous guy on the internet who uses this specific situation to advance his gripes against women.

This isn't some case study in some legal or law enforcement class. This incident involves real people with real feelings. You must be a pretty sad guy to try to use this incident to bash women.

Tripp ("Loser" comment)-No, I just think that saying it's perfectly all right for women (or men) to hit people who are unpleasant but haven't touched or harmed them in any way is, and should continue to be, both wrong and prosecutable.

Do you disagree?

I'm anon., BTW, because I don't have a blogger account. I'm John Salmon.

"I am still of the opinion that promoting a picuture with a caption that advocates extreme measures--beating the crap out of others--for disrespect--is not socially useful."

This is an entirely reasonable argument.

John Salmon:

You're proceeding from incorrect assumptions, because in fact the man in question did touch Krissy first and indeed grabbed her, and if it came to that, there is a bar full of witnesses who would attest to the same. You are free to believe this or not, as you will. However, you would do well to recognize that what you believe and what happened are two entirely separate things, and that your clear belief that you know what happened is not backed up by your knowledge of the event, which is limited to the internet discussion thereof. Don't say you know things you don't know, basically.

I tend to agree with you. My gut tells me that Mrs. Scalzi's actions were disproportionate to the offense, but based on the limited evidence I have at my hands, and the fact that I wasn't there, I am forced to abjure judgement.

I can imagine situations in which Mrs. Scalzi's actions would have been reasonable and I can imagine situations where they would be criminal.

I still find the picture, polemics and responses in the comments section deeply disturbing and offenseive.

It's not only that they implicitly promote "entitlement violence". This is foolish on so many levels.

First,

If Krissy keeps on picking fights in bars and go mana a mano with men eventually she's going to pick on a man who fights back. He'll be stronger then she can imagine and she'll get hurt very, very badly.

People complain a lot about the effect of media portrayals of violence and the effect they have on kids. I say that psychologists should be more concerned with the effect they have on girls and women (who often don't get into real fights until they're in over their heads) then on men and boys (we grow up brawling, to greater & lesser degrees, participate in more physically aggressive activities and sports and have fewer illusions about what happens in a real fight.)

Worry about Aeon Flux & Trinity, not Aragorn & Gimli.

Second, this type of political polemic trivializes the damage suffered by the many innocent men, women & children who have legitimately been victimized, brutalized and marginalized by society because images such as the one of Krissy and her baseball bat & the "You Go Girl!" BS creates a sort of "Cry Wolf Effect." This goes for both the direct and indirect victims of real violence and those who take action to defend themselves from violence. It destroys credibility.

The pic of Krissy's snarling mug may do more damage to victimized women then it does to men. It certainly makes me less inclined to feel sympathetic towards her & more inclined to lay my bias against her case then for it, or reserve judgement, which I would be much more inclined to do had the Scalzi's not chosen this as an opportunity to promote physical violence as an extension of "girl power."

For what it's worth, this left-leaning democrat is appalled by this little show.

Good points, Graham. This blog confuses me. Apparently it is okay for grandma in a wheelchair to blow someone to kingdom come when they reach for a necklace, but not okay for a bar patron to defend herself after some unwanted groping in a bar.

Scalzi-I'm going by the first paragraph on your own site. (I suppose you'll soon remove that paragraph.) The description later changed, yes, but the reason why it changed makes no sense. Why would somebody initially downplay an incident where they hit somebody? The reverse is more likely.

The whole argument would be silly, if some people weren't trying to justify unnecessary violence in a society already far too violent.

"Why would somebody initially downplay an incident where they hit somebody?"

Well, clearly, I changed the description because it became evident it was unclear. If someone who I know to be as intelligent as Dr. Helen made an incorrect assumption of the events based on the language I used, it was clearly incumbent on me to make an update to make the event more clear. You'll note that I didn't change the original language but rather updated -- the reason for this, among other things, was to make sure it was clear to future readers here what it was that Dr. Helen was responding to. If I was genuinely attempting to change my story, for fear of prosecution or whatever, it would have been rather simpler simply to go in and edit the text to make it conform to my wishes. Instead, I merely updated to clarify.

You seem to think that this is evidence of guilt of some sort, but I'm honestly afraid I don't follow the logic behind that. Clarifying events does not equate to guilt, nor does it equate to "changing the story" (among other things, it's correct to say that this fellow try to grab my wife, as he also succeeded.)

I certainly regret that my initial post was ambiguous; generally as I writer I strive for clarity. But your making the assumption that clarifying the post equates to a cover-up is not founded in any sort of reality.

Again, I say: If you have evidence that I am lying about these events, then you ought to bring it out and show it to the crowd so that they know that I am, in fact, a no-good lousy liar. If you cannot, at the very least I would like you to publicly acknowledge that you have no factual basis to call either me or my wife a liar regarding this event. I'm not asking you to apologize, sir; I'm asking you admit that only think I'm a liar rather than that you know I am.

That's not too much to ask, seeing how free you've been to brand me liar without evidence.

In your wheelchair example, a robbery is considered a violent act in which deadly force is justified. In the second example, groping-- is an assault on dignity--with deadly force not justifiable unless the person feared for their life.

Many, mostly liberals, talked about "proportional response" regarding Isreal and Hezbullah. Sounds like we could use some proportional response in this case.

Maybe she was upset because she only attracts drunks. But many women/girls feel it is perfectly acceptable for them to strike a male in response to verbal comments let alone being groped or touched. Just utter one of the mildest insults you can conjur up to a female and see what happens.

A drunk guy walking outside the IFC movie theater spit on a 19-year-old lesbian after she rejected his advances, and allegedly curse her. The woman, and six of her friends, viciously attacked him, whipping him with belts before stabbing him with a 4-inch steak knife.

This is the logical next step when it's OK for women to physically assault men for inappropriate, non-violent advances.

But no. She decides that a man in an open public place just trying to touch her warranted shoving him against a wall and putting her hand to his throat.

Remember this next time someone like the blogger talks about the importance of 2nd amendment rights for women because now you know she'll be first in line calling for any woman who did defend herself in such a way to be charged with murder.

And how is the harassed woman supposed to KNOW when the drunken man might go from pathetic grabber to full-blown rapist/assaulter with broken bottle? By telepathy?

A drunken man can very quickly, without warning, switch from "bellicose" to "vicious" mode. He will be physically stronger, too, and not restrained by conscience or inhibition.So why should the woman he has targeted take any chances? She is dealing with a person who is not thinking clearly -- an unreliable, potentially dangerous stranger. By underestimating the stranger's danger potential, she is literally gambling with her life.

But of course, some of us are telepathic and know exactly what a drunk will do at any given moment...

Smacking a person around for being rude isn't that big of a deal. But pretending there's something noble or wonderful about it is stupid. It either IS a big deal, in which case it was wrong, or it wasn't, in which case it was neither right nor wrong.

The last time I saw something similar to that the guy lost his temper and picked up a table and threw it across the room in lieau of hitting the woman he was bothering, and she ended up bawling hysterically while I held the guy down. Your playing with fire in that situation.

A.R. Yngve asked how a woman is supposed to know when a drunken man might go from pathetic grabber to full blown rapist.

I think the question is not really gender related, so I will answer the question as if it were gender neutral. If the "pathetic grabber" is in a crowded bar, you can bet that said PG will not try to rape you there. Rapes do not occur in crowded bars.

Drunks are indeed testy to deal with, but not all of them are stronger than the people they are bothering. But since rapes do not occur in crowded bars, or even lightly populated bars with any thing remotely approaching the frequency of deadly bee stings, the "gamble" of simply leaving or telling the bartender that someone is bothering you instead of throwing them up against the wall is infinitesimal. I would put it at the sure bet level.

Interesting though, if you change the terms from pathetic rapist to threatening terrorist, preventative violence makes sense. I bet the poster is a big time Bush supporter because she understands the value of preventative intervention. Nah, I am not gonna take that bet either!

"There was an incident like this when I was in college where a young woman pushed a local 'townie' down the stairs of a bar because she thought he was being too forward. He got up and proceeded to beat her until he crushed her eye socket. Now she's blind in that eye and he went to prison. I doubt that either of them would repeat the incident."

Pushing someone down a flight of stairs puts that person in serious risk of severe injury or death.

Do you not see how this makes it somewhat different from the present case?

I think that some of the resonance that this story has for people comes from her underdog status (weakling girl defeats big scary brute) and from a sense of shared annoyance with those 'other' drunks you always run into at bars.

Many people have fantasies of finding the spammers in a dark alley, etc but if you were REALLY in a dark alley with a vulnerable spammer, you would probably just call them names and leave before you car gets stolen.

A couple of months ago, I was in a local bar with some friends. A woman, attractive but I'm surmising drunk, was at the bar and throwing herself at any man who dare sit next to her. There was little doubt about her desires as her body language was screaming. Just as the men's body language was shouting stop bothering me. While she didn't grab them she was touching them. The men would finish their drink and move on. This happened to several men.

From some of the comments here, I would guess these men would have been justified in pushing her off her seat and yelling for her to quit disrespecting men. I mean why should they allow a drunk woman in heat to drive them out of a bar they went to for a drink. But these men were, by the comments here, wimps as all they did was politely parry her advances then moved on to some place else at the first opportunity.

Let me get this straight. You guys get irritated because you say women think of you all as a bunch of potential rapists. Then, with this story, you tell us that if we go to bars or concerts or other places where men are drinking, we really MUST expect to get groped and that, if we're smart and we're "ladies", we'll avoid such scenes. So if I insist on continuing to enjoy live music, I'm either (a) stupid or (b) not a lady (and presumably then asking for it) or both.

You don't want to be considered a potential rapist merely because of your sex. But women are told from childhood to think of ourselves as potential victims based solely on our sex. We can't go out at night by ourselves; we have to be super duper careful and vigilant when going out with new men we don't know that well yet. I can't buy in the neighborhood where I would like to live, because everyone is afraid I'll get murdered whilst out walking my dog at night. And if we violate any of these admonitions, well, we were just foolish.

Have you any idea what it's like growing up knowing that most males could pick you up, haul you away, and do whatever they liked with you at any time? I'm 5'2". I have no defenses. I probably couldn't even fend off many 75 year old men.

And god forbid, there be any discussion amongst you about what needs to be done with our boys so that groping isn't "a common annoyance" for women at bars.

I am having a really difficult time believing that any of you would honestly hold that it is not a woman's right to defend herself from unwanted, aggressive, physical sexual advances. So, here's what I would like to know:

Let's assume that the story as presented in the updated post is correct -- that is: drunken lout makes verbal advances, is rebuffed, and returns with repeatedly more insistent advances, culminating in physical, inappropriate grabbing (by which I mean of a body part as private as the woman's breast, or more so), whereupon he quickly finds himself slammed against the wall with a forearm across his throat.

You don't have to believe that's what happened; that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is this: in the circumstances as described, does this woman have the right to defend herself in the manner in which she did?

And, a follow-up: Please describe a response you would find both more appropriate and more just.

Luke said.."Do you not see how this makes it somewhat different from the present case? "

Let me clarify. I didn't cite that incident to suggest that Krissy's actions were as malicious as that woman's, but that Krissy could have found herself in a very dangerous situation.

What concerns me is that a lot of the commenters, primarily on John's site, are lauding this incident as the 'ass kicking' of a 'little man' by a 'bitch woman' who wouldn't take it any more and who struck a blow for all women by fighting a man. Others are engaging in their own fantasies of breaking fingers, kicking men in the crotch and otherwise showing us 'what violence really is'.

But realistically there was no fight, no ass kicking, no apparent physical threat. It's debateable as to whether Krissy's actions constituted self-defense in either an ethical or legal sense. She spooked an obnoxious drunk by suddenly jamming her arm into his throat and he apologized.

I just don't think that it's a good idea to promote the idea that women can assault men unscathed. And I suspect that most of the men extolling Krissy's actions would tell the women they know to avoid doing the same.

Well! So glad that Capt. Victorian is around to define who the real ladies are. Apparently, women should either never go in bars, or only go in bars that have been inspected and found free of drunken men. Good luck with that second one. However, SHE was not bothering anybody. The drunk was the actor in this, and had the responsiblity to keep to himself.

I thought the original bit about Krissy's barroom adventure was pretty amusing. Beyond that, why do so many people seem to have opinions on this? I don't get it.

Because... because it's not right. Fundamentally.

a) The man shouldn't have been behaving that way; drunk or sober, I was taught how to behave in public, as most people once were. Today the very concept is quaint and bizarre, and people act like hooligans.

b) Mrs Scalzi should not have been forced to defend her person by her own strength; in the crudest roughneck bar in the 1950s, the nearest guy would have acted in her defense, even if he was a friend of the drunkard.

[She is also utterly fortunate that the man was not some PTSD-ridden Navy SEAL who would respond to her "I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar" act by reflexively breaking her arm.]

c) The hooting, jeering gang of misandric harpies who reacted to this tragic affair by cheering her on for "keeping men in their place" are only slightly more twisted than the dominatrix-fetish men who think that Mrs Scalzi's desperation-driven mockman behavior was "sexy."

Everyone who encounters this senses on some level that it is deeply, socially wrong - that it is a war story from a society out of joint. That's why it has stirred up such a fuss.

How warped are you? This was not a feminist statement, anymore than any other form of self-defense. Nobody considered this a form of "putting men in their place," just putting a drunk in his. I'm mind-blown by how many men feel threatened by a women doing anything to defend herself, and how many were shocked that her hubby was NOT AROUND! The hussy goes out in public all by herself. Both you and the Taliban may share your shock together. Where I come from, this would be no big whoop one way or another.

But, Andrea, you can kill your husband, set his bed on fire while he's sleeping in it, beat up guys at the bar, and you'll be proclaimed a heroine.

Well if you're worried about it personally, stop beating your wife and groping people who've told you to go away.

If you're worried about it generically, stop other men from beating their wives or groping people who've told you you go away.

It's not like the burning bed woman was just a pyro or that Krissy suddenly decided to go for this guy's throat.

Of course, maybe your life experiences have left you so twisted that's the only way you can relate to either event.

You call yourself Dadvocate, but a Dad will have about half of his children to be girls, and they will be women and mothers. How much beating and groping do you think your daughters should put up with?

Beating and groping aren't offenses punishable by death except in the minds of people like you.

I have three sisters, two daughters, even a mother. And, no I'm not worried personally. But I do care about things beyond myself.

I also have two brothers, two sons and two gransons. I care that they are growing up in a society prejudiced against males. Where female violence against males is glorified.

And, no we don't hang out at bars. I've been to a bar once in the last 10 years. I"m busy having fun with my kids, hiking, camping, sports, helping with homework, gardening, etc. While I do enjoy a beer now and then, I don't need to go to a loud, smoky bar, get drunk and pretend I'm having fun.

Pushing someone down a flight of stairs puts that person in serious risk of severe injury or death.

Do you not see how this makes it somewhat different from the present case?

Luke-

The point of Andre's story was that violent encounters are unpredictable, and that what happened in that story could have easily happened in this one.

This isn't a male chauvinist thing, it's a reality thing. If women are going to go around using vigilante violence they better know the law and the risks involved, because most of them are used to consequence-free violence, and that doesn't always turn out to be the case.

Read Andre's story. Then read it again. Then read it another time. Doesn't telling the bouncer make a whole lot more sense than risking a collapsed eye socket?

Dadvocate, if someone is beating you, you are perfectly within your rights to use lethal force to stop them. If they die, it's their bad. End of story. If they have a habit of beating you, and you know that the next time may be your death and you can document this, then these circumstances should preclude a murder charge if you pre-emptively kill them. Some lesser charge may be appropriate if you did not take steps to cooperate with authorities in ending the situation.

But I do care about things beyond myself.

Not so that I can tell. From what I can tell, you think if a woman is being groped she should put up with it, or at most scream "woe is me, won't someone help me.", and if they are being beaten, they should just put up with it. You selfishly want the preponderance of legal and moral advantage arrogated to yourself and this man you are defending so that you can treat women with disrespect to the point of assault with no immediare or concommitant consequences.

I care that they are growing up in a society prejudiced against males. Where female violence against males is glorified.

No you don't, or you wouldn't be objecting to a woman defending herself--you would be celebrating her successful self-defense and bemoaning the fact it was neccessary. No society wide prejudice of the sort you describe changes the circumstance of waht happened to Mrs. Scalzi. There is nothing in Scalzi's post to glorify female on male violence that is undeserved in the abstract. This guy deserved it. If you could prove otherwise, go to the police. If you can't, you do your putative side a grave disservice in defending this boorish drunk.

This isn't a male chauvinist thing, it's a reality thing. If women are going to go around using vigilante violence they better know the law and the risks involved, because most of them are used to consequence-free violence, and that doesn't always turn out to be the case.

Anonymous is correct in only a very few particulars. The most glaring, grotesque error they make is in conflating self-defense with vigilanteism. The two are very nearly diametric opposites. Anonymous also entirely discounts the consequences of her not putting her arm across the mans throat, or some other effective stop on his actions, which is that she has to sit there (or if she tries to flee and the guy pushes her down, she lies there), and until someone pulls him off of her, he gropes her and otherwise touches her in an unwanted sexual way.

Of course self-defense can escalate into a worse outcome than some other course of action, but on balance you are best off if you use a firearm to defend yourself, and never to simply comply with your attacker's demands. This man was not put off by words, and escalated to laying hands on her. Even if she had told the bartender, if she had not stopped him by force, it seems she would have had to put up several seconds of sexual assault before a bouncer could pull him off of her. She stopped that. Be glad for her.

There is nothing in Scalzi's post to glorify female on male violence that is undeserved in the abstract.

The picture of the woman with a baseball bat threatening to beat you isn't glorifying violence? Quit livng in your fantasy world and look at reality. Your very good at imagining motives and characteristics of those who disagree with you. But your mind is closed.

Scalzi's story kept changing at the blog when pushed on details.

Of course, if the genders had been reversed but the actions the same, all this would be a very different story.

The picture of the woman with a baseball bat threatening to beat you isn't glorifying violence? Quit livng in your fantasy world and look at reality.

The reality is that that the picture is posted in the context of someone grabbing her after making unwanted sexual advances.

It's you who are imagining other motives.

Scalzi's story kept changing at the blog when pushed on details.

Actually, he said he was clarifying. If you have some proof he was changing the story, then hey, you have evidence of a crime, go to the police. Put up or shut up.

Your statements are at best consistent with a belief on your part that because in some areas of law and society, the playing field is tilted against men, that Mrs. Scalzi should have let the man molest her.

Which is why I think you aren't really interested in leveling the playing field, you want some kind of vicarious payback to Mrs. Scalzi's detriment.

I've enjoyed the spirited discourse on whether Mrs. Scalzi is a woman who is defending her own honor or whether she is an evil bitch that should have been flattened and then arrested. However, I want to put you all on alert. If any person gropes me without my permission, I will deck you. I've done it before and I will do it again. I don't care if it is in a bar, on a college campus or in a police station. It won't matter if I am standing next to my SO or the entire US Marine Corp. I don't care what you think of me. I doubt Mrs. Scalzi cares either. End of story.

Anonymous said:"The point of Andre's story was that violent encounters are unpredictable, and that what happened in that story could have easily happened in this one."

No, not really, unless there were sharp objects on that wall that no one mentioned so far.Krissy quickly got this guy into an extremely vulnerable position (arm on throat), which had very small risk to him personally. She was able to hold him there until an understanding was reached. Meanwhile, he was humiliated but not in danger or pain.If the guy successfully defended himself prior to her getting her one attack in, what are the chances that he would be truly enraged? Not so much.

This is extremely different from the Andre's friend's case, where she succeeded in her attack, which put him through serious risk and gave her no tactical advantage. He was immediately free to come back at her, and pumped up from just having had a near-death experience. He is nearly certain to be enraged. Her only safe outlet was the worst case, in which he broke his neck or something of that order; or if she managed to lock herself in a room at the top of the steps. Or if she had a gun or something otherwise supremely intimidating, which she could use in the few seconds before he returned and beat the living guts out of her (in this case, her eye)

My post was in response to his original one saying that the man tried to touch her-- if he had originally stated that the man had grabbed her etc., my post would have read differently as that would have been more evidence that the measures she took

tried to touch her = assaultgrabbed her = battery

Big difference?

You mentioned that if a man did this, there'd be repercussions - that's only because women don't raise unwanted advances to this level. Consider Michael Douglas's violent responses to Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction." No one found them over the top.

He accosted her verbally, and she responded verbally. When he used his hands, she used hers. Measured and corresponding response. She did not harm him, she merely put her hands on him in a manner which embarrassed him, which he found threatening, and which constrained his actions - no different from his actions. A lot of people might have flattened him.

" If any person gropes me without my permission, I will deck you. I've done it before and I will do it again. I don't care if it is in a bar, on a college campus or in a police station. It won't matter if I am standing next to my SO or the entire US Marine Corp. I don't care what you think of me. I doubt Mrs. Scalzi cares either. End of story. "

Well, then you should both share the same cell. But it won't happen, because you'll use the pussy pass. "Oh, we need to use overwhelming force, because men are physically so much stronger!" Big, strong, kick-ass, grrrrl-power women - so don't try to peddle that bravado, because we all know you are risking nothing at all. It's just a cheap little pose.

"If Krissy keeps on picking fights in bars and go mana a mano with men eventually she's going to pick on a man who fights back. He'll be stronger then she can imagine and she'll get hurt very, very badly."

So picking a fight constitutes being an attractive woman in a bar who refuses to accept a drunk's advances? Oh and don't forget that she's 'picking on him'? So if the drunk reacted violently to her insistance - with force - that he stop coming on to and groping her, it would be her own damn fault right? Geez where are these uppity women getting this idea that they have the right to be out in a bar - Le GASP! How unladylike! - and be left alone?

And to those who compare a woman pinching a man's ass, to a man who refuses to stop coming on to a woman in the same context, did you think about the fact that in almost all situations, a guy doesn't have to worry that if he refuses it may end up leading to a rape or sexual violence?But I've forgotten it's all her fault isn't it? Because that dirty temptress made the decision to go into the bar so she gets what she deserves?

A woman defends herself against unwanted touch... and everyone assumes that she over-reacted.

Why is this?

Sure, sure, it says "tried to touch". Where did he try to touch her? How did he try to touch her? You don't know, you didn't see.

But you still had a damn good reason (or so you thought) to think she over-reacted.

And sure, you edited an addition to your blog entry, but, you know something?

You also said this: Krissy had a number of options before she used violence in this situation, for it is not one of self-defense like someone breaking into your house or holding you up on the street.

You didn't know; you didn't have enough information to make that judgment. You still assumed your guess was correct. You didn't think that maybe her reaction was measured and appropriate. You didn't trust her; in fact, you automatically assumed she wasn't worthy of being trusted.

You'd rather think that she, the victim, was at fault, than try to get all the facts.

I'd like to point something else out, as well.

If a person wants to touch you without your consent, you're allowed to use whatever force is necessary and appropriate to defend your person. It doesn't matter if your life is in danger; it doesn't matter if you're going to be physically damaged. If a guy wants to caress your tit or grope your ass, or do something even worse, you are within your rights to use appropriate force to prevent him.

Don't believe me; check with a lawyer. The relevant phrase is "appropriate force". Demonstrating that you're willing to defend yourself, without causing damage to the other person, is clearly appropriate force.

All this said, honestly, and truly, I can understand your getting freaked over the pose with the baseball bat.

But I think getting freaked by the picture, and what you mistakenly thought it implied, affected your judgment.

Hey girlie-girls, all in a lather that one of your sistas took to physically responding to an unwanted touch, chivalry ain't dead yet, but when it finally breaths its last, guys like this one are going to take that baseball bat and stick where they wanted to stick something else. And they might end up in jail, but two things are undoubtedly going to happen: 1) you're going to end up with your face broken and maybe worse; 2) the guys at the bar who are watching, who today might be tempted to help you out, are going to continue watching, and maybe laugh. So put away the "I am woman, hear me roar" attitude, 'cause that's all it is: attitude.

True story, In Hamilton, NJ, at a place called Cost-Cutters, on a rainy night in September, 1989, a woman with a black-belt in karate named Marjorie Szeker was acosted in the parking lot of said establishment by a man who wanted her purse. She refused, and she fought back in keeping with her training. She was found a few minutes later lying in a pool of her own blood, dead, purse missing. Marjorie was regarded as an accomplished and fierce fighter by her sen-sei, but the man who attacked her was obviously an accomplished street-figher himself. And as far as I know, he was identified, but never apprehended.

The reality is that that the picture is posted in the context of someone grabbing her after making unwanted sexual advances.

And the picture glorified her semi-violent response.

Actually, he said he was clarifying.

The "clarification" changed the story. Is that so hard to grasp? I have no proof one way or the other regarding the facts but the story changed. Additionally, Mr. Scalzi wasn't present so he only has his wife's version.

Your statements are at best consistent with a belief on your part that because in some areas of law and society, the playing field is tilted against men, that Mrs. Scalzi should have let the man molest her.

Here you go with your imaginary mind reading again. I wish I had your psychic abilities. Is this how you impugn those who disagree with you? Perhaps you should resort to ad homonym. (The spelling is a joke.)

When threatened, in most states a person has a "duty to retreat". Ms. Scalzi could have easily done so, spoken to the management, etc. but chose not to. She preferred to grand stand. I do think the term "assault" is not appropriate for this situation which is essentially the insipid story of an encounter between two people at a bar of which one, maybe two, were drunk.

Things like this happen in bars. This is why I don't go to bars. You may think it's your right to go where ever, etc and it it is. But that's not realistic. If I walk down the wrong street with flashy gold jewelry counting a roll of money, what's going to happen? If I leave my car unlocked on the streets of most large cities, what's going to happen?

Yeah, I don't like being groped either. But, as an attractive, muscular man, it happens all the time by women and gays. But I don't get physical. I just tell them they have an hour to stop it.

Cham, I got no problem with your not liking being groped. I'm not an especially attractive guy, but it happened to me a couple of times. When I turned around to look at who did it, there were nothing but young women behind me, and instead of being thrilling, it felt creepy. So I don't blame you for not liking being groped.

But in case you didn't get the message from the reactions of the (apparently-) male commenters here, your bravado is known to be false because you can't back it up, no matter how willing you are. It tends to elevate the response to the threat so that it is no longer symmetrical. You cannot predict the response of the man (or woman!) who accosted you, and so you should measure your response carefully, lest the behavior you look to interdict gets far worse.

Scalzi's wife could easily have gotten her ass kicked before she had a chance to raise the bat. What she did, for all the applause from the women in the peanut gallery, was dangerous and stupid.

Now that her picture is on the Web with that silly-assed bat, I wouldn't be surprised for a moment if that same guy, or another one, comes along to call her bluff. She should alert her bodyguards.

I can back up my bravado, because I attacked a man who was twice my size when he grabbed my breast in a public park. Nobody touches me that I don't want touching me. And no, neither he nor I even thought about calling the police. Politely retreating probably would have gotten me raped.

Okay, I wasn't there, and I don't know the guy who accosted you. But I'm of the opinion that many women are convinced that the likelihood of any random man being a rapist is far higher than reality. It comes from the "one coed in four" will be raped myth that gets bandied-about on most American college compuses. The real number is more like one woman in twenty-five, which is still far too high.

But, again, I wasn't there.

But let ask you to ask yourself: is your willingness to respond making such a situation more likely than it would be otherwise? I know this happens with men, and I suspect that it's becoming more likely with women, especially women who box or engage in martial arts.

One must always be judicious when using physical violence. I saw a woman, admittedly probably a tough kick-ass woman, jump on a bouncer for ejecting her drunken boyfriend from a popular downtown bar. He was drunk and more or less cooperative, she was sober and shrieking while pulling the bouncer's hair and swinging at his face with her free hand. He warned her once, twice, three times, then punches her so hard in the mouth that he knocked out all her teeth. To think that everyone got dressed that evening hoping to have a good time. I bring this story up to illustrate a tendency I have often noticed. Tough, kick-ass women escalating already dangerous situations and then being surprised when some 6'4" 245 pound gorilla knocks the crap out of them. I can tell you there were no men in that bar, drunk or sober, who would have screwed with that bouncer and the bouncer certainly would not have given three warnings to any man. I see people commenting on this story saying that “no one messes with me.” Well guess what, sometimes the correct response for a man or a woman is to leave politely. Getting your ass kicked or kicking somebody else ass is not good clean fun. A physical confrontation at best and at minimum is evening ruiner. Obviously if you’re backed to wall and have no other choices do whatever you need to do.

one time, this guy was "just trying to touch me" in a parking lot. i told him to stop, he pushed me against the windshield and when i shouted, he clamped his hand over my mouth. i then bit his fingers hard as i could and tasted bone. he screamed, tried to punch me, which i deflected and i then kicked him in the shins and managed to get in my car, driving off to safety.Dr. Helen, did i overreact? i mean, the man was "just trying to touch me." or just trying to rape me/murder me.maybe i should've put him in time out. that would've stopped him.are you sure that women are the ones who walk around with big senses of entitlement? i mean, besides yourself, of course.

"Things like this happen in bars. This is why I don't go to bars. You may think it's your right to go where ever, etc and it it is. But that's not realistic. If I walk down the wrong street with flashy gold jewelry counting a roll of money, what's going to happen? If I leave my car unlocked on the streets of most large cities, what's going to happen?"

O.K, does this mean that I shouldn't call the cops, or defend my property? Maybe we shouldn't prosecute criminals, either. Just let them take over. You know, cause it's gonna happen.

"Well guess what, sometimes the correct response for a man or a woman is to leave politely."

Yes, because gropers deserve to run the world, and dictate other people's behavior. All you guys who claim she was "lucky" she didn't get a beating are a hoot. Are you secretly sorry that didn't happen? It seems that is a real possibility sometimes, but she in fact sized up the situation correctly in this case, and it came out to the good.

"I think the question is not really gender related, so I will answer the question as if it were gender neutral. If the "pathetic grabber" is in a crowded bar, you can bet that said PG will not try to rape you there. Rapes do not occur in crowded bars."

Hmmmmmm...I wonder...

http://www.masslawyersweekly.com/mlw30/case4.cfm

Which spawned this movie:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094608/

My God...this site, the anti-woman sentiment, and worse, the intentional naivete is just plain old sickening.

Remember ladies: it's never about the behavior of males, it's about your behavior (and your clothing and why you were alone at night and why you were at a bar in the first place and what you should have done and what you could have done and what somebody smarter would have done and why did you overreact, he was "just trying to touch you").Let's not make the poor dears accountability for their own behavior- it might bruise their sensitive male egos. He was "just trying to touch you" don't you understand that?

To a p*ssed off New Yorker:I couldn't agree more. "just trying to touch her" what a way to minimize- I sincerely hope this woman isn't a practicing psychologist.

Yeah, I mean, who's to say that if I just handle it verbally, by speaking up, shouting at him to leave me alone, humiliate him...who's to say THAT approach wouldn't escalate the situation? So, really, my only option is to go and beg for the protection of some man and hope to hell he gives it. Or, as dadvocate suggests, never ever go to another bar or concert for the rest of my life, because apparently it's unreasonable to expect that we could do something about this problem. (By the way, most fine restaurants have a bar. Does that count? I mean, it's certainly possible that men could be drunk there too. So, do I have to avoid all restaurants with bars too?)

Again, it really amazes me, Helen, what with all the talk you've engaged in here about how we're raising our girls wrong and what we need to do as a society to improve the quality of life for boys in this country, that you can't be bothered to speak about what we as a society need to do to make such behavior not "a common annoyance". I mean, what with your "psychological perspective" and all.

my post would have read differently does not equal "I was WRONG. OH so WRONG. And I APOLOGIZE to the woman I have attacked based on my own false assumptions fueled by my own projection and profound self hatred."She cannot even admit that she totally missed the boat on this one. Doctor heal thyself.

That's right, I warn women not to assault drunks because I hate women. It's all about my insecurities, you see, and my sensitive male ego. Count me as sensitized!

Aside from the bloviating, what conspicuous is that many of the people promoting Krissy's actions need to lie and exagerrate to make her escalation of the situation seem more appropriate. It's gone from an incident involving an obnoxious drunk and a very brief one-sided altercation, resulting in an immediate apology, to an act of mortal self defense tantamount to an attempted rape.

Hm. Helen said this in the post below on "Crime Strike TV". "In a time when pantywaists like the UN try to say that self-defense is not a human right, it is refreshing to see that TV shows like Crime Strike realize that self-defense is the ultimate human right."

Where's your respect for Krissy not being a pantywaist in the face of an assault and battery in the form of groping?

No, not really, unless there were sharp objects on that wall that no one mentioned so far.Krissy quickly got this guy into an extremely vulnerable position (arm on throat), which had very small risk to him personally. She was able to hold him there until an understanding was reached. Meanwhile, he was humiliated but not in danger or pain.If the guy successfully defended himself prior to her getting her one attack in, what are the chances that he would be truly enraged? Not so much.

This is extremely different from the Andre's friend's case, where she succeeded in her attack, which put him through serious risk and gave her no tactical advantage. He was immediately free to come back at her, and pumped up from just having had a near-death experience. He is nearly certain to be enraged. Her only safe outlet was the worst case, in which he broke his neck or something of that order; or if she managed to lock herself in a room at the top of the steps. Or if she had a gun or something otherwise supremely intimidating, which she could use in the few seconds before he returned and beat the living guts out of her (in this case, her eye)

No, you don't know how someone is going to react to a criminal assault. And an arm on the throat is nothing, there are hundreds of ways to counter it. The guy could have just as easily flipped out and beat her to death for what she did.

I don't care if it is in a bar, on a college campus or in a police station. It won't matter if I am standing next to my SO or the entire US Marine Corp. I don't care what you think of me. I doubt Mrs. Scalzi cares either.

That's pretty funny - the last time I was in a bar with a woman and a guy grabbed her it was a Marine. He was a "friend" of hers so I asked her if she wanted me to tell a bouncer or hit him - she declined.

Anonymous is correct in only a very few particulars. The most glaring, grotesque error they make is in conflating self-defense with vigilanteism. The two are very nearly diametric opposites. Anonymous also entirely discounts the consequences of her not putting her arm across the mans throat, or some other effective stop on his actions, which is that she has to sit there (or if she tries to flee and the guy pushes her down, she lies there), and until someone pulls him off of her, he gropes her and otherwise touches her in an unwanted sexual way.

No - vigilante-ism is personal enforcement of the law or what one thinks is right. Self-defense is vigilante behavior that meets the requirments to be justified by law. It was stated that he did it several times. Tell the bouncer the first time and there's likely no violence and no other times.

Of course self-defense can escalate into a worse outcome than some other course of action, but on balance you are best off if you use a firearm to defend yourself, and never to simply comply with your attacker's demands. This man was not put off by words, and escalated to laying hands on her. Even if she had told the bartender, if she had not stopped him by force, it seems she would have had to put up several seconds of sexual assault before a bouncer could pull him off of her. She stopped that. Be glad for her.

No, if she went to get the bouncer he's not molesting her because she's not there. Unless he's following her, in which case this saves the bouncer the trip.

A pissed off New Yorker wrote: "My God...this site, the anti-woman sentiment, and worse, the intentional naivete is just plain old sickening." In my stating that more people die from bee stings each year than are raped in crowded bars. He then sites the ONE case of rape in a crowded bar from the last 30 years.

For the record, rape is awful, and I hope the participants and onlookers were severly punished. But one occurance in recorded American legal history does not a point make! An average of 50 people die from bee stings in the US every year. I have you beat 1500 to 1 New Yorker! (30 years x 50 deaths vs 1 horrible rape in a crowded bar.)

Refuting misleading claptrap and convienent lies like your attempt at making a point is not antiwoman. The truth is prowoman, proman, protransgendered, etc. That is the point, not shilling for men or being a tool of patriarchy."

Being a KoolAid drinker is not the same as being a critical thinker. The presence of posters capable of the latter is why we enjoy this site. Stick around: Read: Think: Learn something. Maybe you won't be so pissed off.

All you guys who claim she was "lucky" she didn't get a beating are a hoot. Are you secretly sorry that didn't happen? It seems that is a real possibility sometimes, but she in fact sized up the situation correctly in this case, and it came out to the good.

Remember the line in the parent post about fathers teaching sons about appropriate responses to violence? This is what Dr. Helen was talking about. Certain very obvious things don't necessarily sink in if you've never had them pointed out. Everybody agrees with these thing, but nobody believes they apply to themselves.

First very obvious thing: might has absolutely nothing to do with right. Mrs. Scalzi was 100% justified to do what she did. But justice has nothing to do with it. She put herself in a very dangerous situation. I know one guy who tried to break up a fight once. Several guys were beating up on one guy (he didn't know anybody on either side). My acquaintance had much more justification than Mrs. Scalzi. He got cut up with a hunting knife and was in the hospital for weeks.

Second very obvious thing: size has a prohibitive advantage in a fight, except in cases of extremely unbalanced experience. I don't know either person, so I can't comment on the specific situation.

Third very obvious thing: only you can pick or avoid a fight. You pick or avoid a fight by your own actions. Complaining to management, moving, conceding the issue in dispute, or in extreme cases leaving the area are all options. I myself have done most if not all of these things, and I'm sure every male commenting has as well.

That segues into a final very obvious thing: everybody has to learn these things for themselves. Every week I see teenage guys get into avoidable confrontations. The picture of two teenagers shouting at each other while their friends hold them back is a cliche'. Eventually a guy's friends talk some sense into him and he stops getting into these things. That, or he gets stabbed.

Finally, I don't think you're right when you say that Mrs. Scalzi sized the situation up correctly and everything came out to the good. Everything in the story suggests that she got pissed off (with good reason) and acted on impulse. The point that I at least am trying to make is that getting in physical confrontations like this is likely a bigger risk than she or many commenters appreciate.

The hyperbole by the womanists here is amazing. I say womanists because I doubt that all of them are even feminists.

The original story is weak on details and strong on displays of female bravado. We really have little justification in assign elements to the story regarding what "might" have been Ms. Scalzi's attacker's intent. But there's sufficient detail to assume that his intent was nefarious (but little more than that).

And so the womanists here amplify the threat and assign the worst intent automatically and practically claim that murder in the name of self defense is quite justified, where it's not at all clear what the threat level really was. "Let's just kill 'em. They're just men anyway." Natalie Manes would be proud.

Yeah, you really don't know how anybody is going to act under ANY circumstances. So, handling this situation by simply telling the guy to buzz off, humiliating him, or even complaining to the manager could set him off into a violent rage. So, again, really my only option is to never ever go to another bar or concert for the rest of my life. Because apparently it's unreasonable to expect that we could do something about this problem. Also, there are often bars in fine restaurants. So, I guess I can't eat out anymore either. Because it's quite possible there could be a drunk man there. And, again, it would just be foolish of me to think that I should be able to go to such a place in peace.

Again, really Helen, it amazes me (ok, actually by now it doesn't) that you engage in discussion around here about how our society is raising our girls with bad attitudes and what we need to do to improve the quality of life for boys in this country and yet you can't be bothered to speak about what we as a society need to do to stop this from being "a common annoyance". I mean, what with your "psychological perspective" and all.

Also, I note in the post below (Crime Strike TV) you wrote: "In a time when pantywaists like the UN try to say that self-defense is not a human right, it is refreshing to see that TV shows like Crime Strike realize that self-defense is the ultimate human right."

So, where's the respect for Krissy not being a pantywaist and defending herself against assault and battery or, at a minimum if you really think they've changed the story, attempted assault and battery?

"I can back up my bravado, because I attacked a man who was twice my size when he grabbed my breast in a public park. "

Cham really just doesn't get it, does she? She thinks the bravado people are referring to has to do with managing to pull off a counter-attack, when in fact the real bravado people are referring to has to do with being penalized by the legal system for defending oneself. She wouldn'yt know anything about this, since she is a woman and woman get a pass in the legal system when it comes to physical violence. Partly this is because of the Neandrthal attitudes of law enforcment officers, who assume that women are victims and men are aggressors, and we see that attitude in a lot of women commeenters hers too. Then too, the legal system simply holds women to lower standards of behavior where violence is concerned. This has been amply documented on this blog for months and there is no need to rehash that information here.

Something that is blatantly clear in this discussion is the flat-out dishonesty of the commenters trying to defend this woman's over-reaction.

One commenter made a snipe that supposed the rest of us were condemning the woman for being unladylike. Look, the woman is common-born street meat like all the rest of us here and we all know better than to expect ladylike behavior from common folk.

Second, certain commenters are making a point of ignoring the point about proportionate response. They claim that other commenters are condemning the woman for merely defending herself. This is just a dishonest, tired, trite little tactic that fools no one except perhaps the fools trying it.

Then there is Anonymous Coward, who chimes in with this dishonest little gem:

"Dr. Helen, did i overreact? i mean, the man was "just trying to touch me." or just trying to rape me/murder me.maybe i should've put him in time out. that would've stopped him.are you sure that women are the ones who walk around with big senses of entitlement? "

1) Blatantly dishonest equation of "just trying to touch" in the actual situation in question with what was obviously a bonafide rape attempt in her case. Do try to be a little more subtle convincing with your distortions.

2) You are making it obvious that women are the ones with the big senses of entitlement when you expect to get away with dodges lkie this, and when you think that you are entitled to inflict bodily harm for rude or even threatening behavior. Do you accept a man's right to break a beer bottle and gouge out an eye, and maybe most of a chhek, after you kick him in the nuts? So who is the one feeling entitled?

And then there is this one:

"Remember ladies: it's never about the behavior of males, it's about your behavior (and your clothing and why you were alone at night and why you were at a bar in the first place and what you should have done and" blah blah blah.

No. This is weaselly; it's been about appropriate and proportional response to an attack or a threat or an aggression, ever since this thread started. Here you have men trying to engage you like adults and equals, and you respond like ...girls. This is a good opportunity to respond like women instead. Like adults.

She continues with this:

"Let's not make the poor dears accountability for their own behavior- it might bruise their sensitive male egos. He was "just trying to touch you" don't you understand that?"

Way to lie, there. We were talking about the woman being responsible for her violence. But no, for you, it always has to come back to some man's infraction, always. And we were talking about threatening someone with a LETHAL WEAPON, a basaeball bat, not bruising someone's ego. Weak attempt at minimizing, very weak. Does this kind of cheap trick work on the men you associate with? Judging from the histrionics and Distortions some women on this thread are resorting to, it isn't men's egos that are sensitive, (Oh, and why shouldn't men have sensitive egos, or do you only like the brutish kind so you can sneer at them for being crude?) or men's behavior that can't stand criticism ans scrutiny.

Andrea, since you are asking a straightforward and honest question, despite your sarcastic tone, maybe this will help - the woman's behavior in this situation is part of the "all the talk" Helen "engages in". The problem is women's belief that they are entitled to use extraordinary force, that they are entlitled more than men to the protection of the police (VAWA), that rape happens only or even predominantly to women, that they are entitled to the children, that they are entitled to be paid even after they sex stops (alimony), on and on and on.....

She asked him more than once to leave her alone. What gives him the right to bother her? I would have done the same thing if some ignorant person kept bothering me after I said "Please leave me alone."

But don't pick a fight with a guy who knows how. Or rather, fight like a girl. Use guile, feint, weapons of opportunity and take advantage of your strength by concealing it. What you've got won't beat a really strong guy if he knows its coming, but it makes for a nasty secret weapon if he's stunned or injured.

And watch for people with obvious combat training and combat reflexes. Whatever they do, if they get frisky and you go ape, you'll just die.

Good fighters evaluate the enemy & territory before they start making moves.

Act. Assess. Think. Read teh terrain. Look for weapons and allies. Don't react with idiot rage unless your superiority over the enemy is an established and certain thing.

Set your enemy up where you are strong & he is weak based on the best available knowledge & don't pretend you're Aeon Flux.

Remember that when you're confronting a violent person that this person in all likelihood has spent a long time being violent and is probably pretty good at it, since he isn't dead or in jail. Consider this. Look for other options if you can & don't be cool. If you don't have a choice, just end it efficiently. And don't worry about the mess. If the mes isn't you, not you've won. You walk away, you've won. But don't pick fights unless you have an end-game scenario. But don't get to like it too much.

Violence is only cool in movies and role-playing games.

Do be ready for some jail time in any event, even if you're in the right. It's always a high-probability event.

Mrs. Scalzi was possibly guilty of aggravated assault. We don't know. She was probably guilty of foolish and potentially self-destructive behavior. Violent female crime rates have been on the rise for more then a decade.

And women who get violent with men usually end up having to either do more damage then they might want to, if they're acting on impulse, realize the mess they've gotten into, and end up having to use a deadly weapon against a foe they can't incapacitate. That or they end up being injured because they DIDN'T grab a weapon after picking a fight.

The main themes here are pretty simple:

Don't start fights when there is an alternative.

Don't start fights unless you are prepared and able to finish them, and willing to take the consequences.

Don't be a thug. Man or woman, thugs are thugs.

If you must fight, don't fight with what you don't have. Know what you do have and use it to best effect.

Use alternative means of conflict resolution if available.

Don't use your sex as an excuse for violence. That goes for men as well as women.

How is this a liberal or conservative issue? This is bloodly 3rd grade playground wisdom.

You want some truth?

What I see is a bunch of punks on every end of the political spectrum forming online gangs. These gangs perpetuate their identity politics, their victimhood AND their superiority, along with their right to use "any means necessary" to accomplish whatever it is they feel justfied doing.

As Helen as noted, old "anger management" techniques such as punching pillows in lieu of punching people often lead to punching people. This jives with what I know about military and police training, which begins by prepping recruits to kill by providing them with man-shaped dummies or targets to kill and my own experience with smashing stuff.

I got used to punching holes in drywall a long time ago. Gets addictive.

I cured myself by forcing myself to patch them.

Mostly, anyway.

You practice any king of violence, you knock down psychological barriers which make it easier to escalate that violence. Hurt other people. Get yourself hurt. Whatever. Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes, when you're practicing on live people who KNOW HOW TO HIT BACK, you gain a certain levelling morality, an appreciation of the consequences of your actions.

When you get your own butt kicked, I mean.

A few people possess enough empathy to perceive the pain they inflict and, to paraphrase the immortal Mr. Miyagi & Daniel-san, learn to fight so that they don't to fight, or fight so much. There ain't many. Mostly, people who get used to violence become little more then violent animals & need to be put down. Once they were somebody's son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, lover, or friend. What they become is the worst kind of junkie, addicted to violence and looking, every day, for a bigger high, a bloodier fight.

If I may borrow another line, this time from one Maggie Fitzgerald, as channelled by the the mortal actress Hillary Swank in MDB:

When do women go around inappropriately touching men? It's well known that men sexually aggress on women. She had every right to aggressively defend herself. You people are idiots. And as a psychologist, you should be ashamed to be so ignorant of women's history in the U.S.

Anon 11:51 wrote "When do women go around inappropriately touching men? It's well known that men sexually aggress on women. She had every right to aggressively defend herself. You people are idiots. And as a psychologist, you should be ashamed to be so ignorant of women's history in the U.S."

Wow, a real koolaid drinker. I have been groped by men AND women. Honestly, I am not Brad Pitt and never have been. GROPING is the problem, not men or women.

It is well known that SOME men perpetrate. You are in denial about how women perpetrate, and that denial may hurt you and your family. For instance, did you know that it is a FACT that more children are killed by women perpetrators than men? FACT.

Of course everyone has the right to defend themselves, but there are times when violence is not the answer. We are trying to discuss if this was one of those times. It is not an attempt to keep women docile and weak, it is I think an attempt to refine when to be violent and when not to. Hyperviolent people hurt others and get hurth themselves. Gender does not enter into it.

So free yourself from the shackles of gender feminism! They are so coloring your understanding that you are making gross errors. Support women, I do. But support of women does not necessarily involve ignorance and lining up for the little paper cup.

"She decides that a man in an open public place just trying to touch her warranted shoving him against a wall and putting her hand to his throat.

It is a common annoyance that happens in bars and does not usually warrant a choke-hold as an initial reaction."

In bars, boys will be boysBullshit, Mrs.InstaPundit.Wait until someone in a bar tries to paw InstaDaughter.Just a "common annoyance"? What about men rubbing up against women on crowded trains, fully aroused? Just an anoyance?

Real men don't "try to touch" women in bars they don't know. Focus on the issue before your daughter gets there.

The more bullshit you tolerate by drunken men, the more women are undervalued. Less competition for your lofty social ideas -- only a few women like you "have it" obviously.

I'm not sure if this thread is still going as it only displays times, not dates. But anyway...First off, I'm 19, and thus allowed into very few bars (and most certainly not allowed to drink). Also, college course work has devoured my soul, so I don't get out very much. Not that school actually affects my social life - I just don't get out a lot, period, but schoolwork is a convenient excuse for having no life.The real question here, as several posts have pointed out, is not whether or not people have the right to not be groped; it's what level of reaction is one allowed to take after a not-so polite 'buzz off' has proven ineffective. Gender is secondary to this.Here's my story: I was at a weekend-long anime convention (further proving my lack of a conventional social life). I was 15 at the time with an older friend (18 at the time), and we were going to a Japanese-trance/dance party that goes on through Saturday night (It was probably about 2 a.m.). We left and returned several times, our convention badges checked every time. The final time we tried to enter, the lady (20-25), who worked on the convention staff, demanded to know why we were coming and going and told me to turn around. Being the complacent con-goer I am, I turned around, not sure why I was asked. She then smacked my ass REALLY hard (it was red and still hurt the next morning) and said that I looked sexy in my costume (which was by no means revealing - I was dressing as a male character).We walked away quickly, as I was in no mood to be smacked again. I was aware that the lady, given her comment, where she hit, and how hard she did so that she'd committed some level of child molestation and assault. I didn't deck the lady, like my first instinct wanted me to, and I didn't notify either the convention managers or the police (as neither of us saw the name on her badge and we didn't get a very good look at her before we took off). However, we did tell the managers the next day what happened and they made some changes in how they decide to accept people who want to work for them that weekend.Now, should I have given her a face equally as sore as my butt? Maybe, but it clearly wasn't necessary, so I just got out of the situation. In retrospect, I should have contacted someone immediately, but I know better now. What if 'this lady' was 'some guy', instead? That's happened to me as well. My mother works as a sales director at a bowling alley, and it was the company Christmas party (I was 17 this time). One of her coworkers, a 30-something who I knew fairly well decided that the 'holiday spirit' involved smacking me in the ass and making a lewd comment about stockings. Being older and wiser (but no more legal), I immediately told the center director, who saw to it that this guy was quickly escorted off the premises (he wasn't an employee for much longer, either – I wasn’t the first young woman he’d done this to). Again, I wanted to sock him, but I had no reason to believe that he was anything more than an idiot (although I was ready in case he was more dangerous than he seemed).I can't speak for Ms. Krissy or her perception of her safety/sanctity. However, EVEN with the worst case being considered (instead of 'tried', he did grab her inappropriately), I would probably do just about the same thing as before: I would first get away from this man, inform the bouncer/management that this man had groped me after I had repeatedly told him to leave me alone, and if nothing was done, I would demand an escort to my car/taxi/ride (if I wasn't with a group) so I could take my business elsewhere or I would call the police to handle the creep (and, at least in my state, serving someone so much that they become quite drunk can make the establishment partially responsible for anything that drunk does, especially if they don't do anything about it). If the drunk man approached me again (and I wouldn't get too far away from management/my group until I knew what was going to happen), I would warn him that I had alerted management/bouncer/police and if he approached me again, I would consider it a threat and would take appropriate action. If he did again, then I'd nail him once or however many times it would take to get him to go away. That's what self-defense is about - using enough force to DEFEND, and having the assaulter scamper away is just as effective as having him be a bloody pulp on the floor.Ms. Krissy is certainly not at fault that the drunk touched her, and she has every right to react. I think she may have over-estimated the threat this guy posed, but she wasn't just looking to beat him up (a choke hold is just that - a hold to keep an opponent from attacking). Jail time? Too harsh for this. Maybe a fine at most. And, yes, my opinion would be the same if a chick had groped a guy and he reacted the way Ms. Krissy did to her molester.

As a mother of daughters I have been increasingly dismayed at the level of violence to which females are encouraged and expected to rise to.. even in high school. I've thought that part of the problem is the lack of male protectiveness... we can't count on male interference in these situations can we ?

Although this story has been a fun read, I have to say that I’m surprised that nobody here has see threw it yet! I’ve known some pretty butch women in my lifetime, and I can tell you that none of them would ever even think of trying a thug move like this one on any guy, or for any reason. Realistically, the forearm against the throat is an interrogation move used by tortures against detainees. Without either the power of the state or the power of the mob standing behind Krissy, when she supposedly pulled off this stupid action, I can’t see how it could have happened unless, of course, she just happened to be twice the size of the guy in question.. I could go on an on all day with reasons why this couldn’t have ever happened, but suffice it to say that this story just didn’t happen!